Re: [Gm2] CASE: gm2-4.1.2 of 2011-11-08 bug (or possibly philosophical difference)

[john o goyo]

On 13-Nov-11, at 4:11 p, Manfred Hollstein wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, 21:44:48 +0100, john o goyo wrote:
> > On 13-Nov-11, at 6:45 a, Gaius Mulley wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Hi Gary,
> > >
> > > yes I think this is why I didn't skip the test in gm2 1.0.  But I
> > > concede that in huge legacy code bases it could be painful to add  
> > > ELSE
> > > to each variant record.  As you say it is also easy to disable the
> > > check
> > > anyway.
> >
> > Legacy code is exactly my problem.  There are a lot of such cases --
> > not just with variant records but also incomplete case selections in
> > code.
>
> FWIW, but to be honest, I really hate to implement some workarounds  
> in a
> tool whose purpose should just be to compile a properly defined  
> language
> into machine code... I normally try to _educate_ every person who
> contacts me wrt/ "could the compiler not do this to save me from doing
> that?", that (s)he should fix the anomalies in their own code, because
> the next time, they'll complain about other non-portabilities...

This is not a question of workarounds.  PIM3 allows incomplete CASE  
statements.  If gm2 is to allow PIM3 syntax, then it must allow  
incomplete CASE statements.

As for "anomalies" in existing code, the legacy code I mention  
followed PIM3 and compiled under PIM3 compilers -- including the ETH  
compilers.  My intention is not to edit the code, it is to compile  
it.  If someday, I decide to actually maintain the code or use it for  
some other purpose, then I will modify it to conform to ISO but not  
before.

john

> > john
>
> Just my 2 ¢ ;-)
>
> Cheers..
>
> l8er
> manfred